>>42993149>Carthage was destroyed 9 centuries before islam reach maghreb.not really, it was occupied by the vandals and then by byzantines, but muslims killed everyone in 705 A.D. and burned the city to the ground like they always do with all the nice things.

>Roman CarthageAfter this ill-fated attempt a new city of Carthage was built on the same land by Julius Caesar in 49–44 BC period, and by the 1st century A.D. it had grown to be the second largest city in the western half of the Roman Empire, with a peak population of 500,000[citation needed]. It was the centre of the Roman province of Africa, which was a major breadbasket of the Empire. Among its major monuments was an amphitheater.

>VandalsThereafter the city became the seat of the praetorian prefecture of Africa, which during the emperor Maurice's reign, was made into an Exarchate, as was Ravenna in Italy. These two exarchates were the western bulwarks of the Roman empire, all that remained of its power in the west. In the early 7th century it was the exarch of Carthage who overthrew emperor Phocas.

>Islamic conquestsRoman Carthage was destroyed—its walls torn down, its water supply cut off and its harbours made unusable.[29] It was replaced by Tunis as the major regional centre. The destruction of the Exarchate of Africa marked a permanent end to the Byzantine Empire's influence in the region.

>>42993817I never said Punic culture stayed storng, Romans made a damnatio memoria on them, that is clear as day, I argued that Carthage wasn't destroyed when Arabs came, it was one of the biggest city in the empire.

>>42993882True, Roman carthage had 300-500k romans, second city of the empire.It was pretty good to rape and enslave tunisian but nothing really difficult, everyone did: pheonician, roman, vandals, arabs, normands, turks, french.They're like a cuckbucket for every conqueror, a gang-bang of 3000 years.

>>42994036The population never changed, stay ass-blasted. I also forget Spain for few decades.

>>42994122Oh no, that's the berbers, who live in Algeria and Morocco, you know, the ones stayed independant 95% of their times in the last 6,000 years and still have the same langage and culture. Tunisian failed everytime against every invader where moroccan-algerian succeded.

>>42994286>all of EuropeJust during the great migrations. Before and after that Europe was running well the business of asskicking everyone else (excluding the Caliphates that existed for a short period there).

>>42994535Seriously though, why are like 50% of the world's civilizations right next to the mediterranean (Egyptian, Sumerian-Babylonian, Graeco-Roman, Jewish-Persian-Byzantine-Islamic, Western European), while the rest (Dharmic, Chinese) basically petrified after a while? It can't be because of a lack of intelligence, Indians and Chinese regularly enter prestigious universities and stuff

>>42994535>nordic/Germanic managed to stay free most of their times. Unlike Celts.

That's because nobody could be bothered conquering Germany. It was worthless in the eyes of the Romans, they called it a 'desert'. Not because of the climate but because they had no cities or wealth, mostly still hunted for food rather than farming food, and had no useful resources. So aside from a few mass genocides to keep them in check, the romans just didn't bother.

The Greeks said it was pointless contacting the Germans or Scandinavians because they had nothing to offer and no way of harming Greece due to their extreme poverty

for example, when alexander conquered the achaemenid empire he was disgusted at the practise of letting the dead get eaten by vultures in places like persis, he was even more butthurt when he went to places like bactria and found that they let dogs (sacred to zoroastrians) eat the sickly and the dead

it was also during the reign of the sassanids that several religions were effectively wiped out, it took several doses of turkic liberalism to quell durkaism in the area and even then it's not that effective